March 12, 2007
Richard Fristik
USDA Rural Development, Utilities Programs
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Mail Stop 1571, Room 2237
Washington, DC 22050-1571
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
proposed by Southern Montana Electric Coops. (SME)
to construct a CFB coal plant, the Highwood Generating Station (HGS)
Regarding my comments on the Draft EIS as they pertain to the FEIS.
Thank you for considering portions of my oral comments given at the Havre testimony session last summer.
Also, thank you for including in the FEIS much of the written comments I submitted; however, it appears that they were all credited to Julia Becker, (C-8)!
Ultimately, upon review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) for the proposed Coal-fired(CFB) Highwood Generating Station(HGS) and comments thereon, I believe the EIS is so faulted as to justify the completion of a Supplemental EIS. Also, no Record of Decision should be made until after all related government departments have officially documented their positions on the Proposal.
I still am convinced that to approve construction of a CFB plant would be harmful to the Cascade County/Great Falls community. A CFB plant may well stifle economic development in the region. A preponderance of evidence establishes IGCC as a superior coal technology; therefore, CFB does not meet the ÒBest Available Coal Technology (BACT)Ó test. The FEIS fails genuinely to consider appropriate energy production alternatives to the proposed SME-HGS project: many of which should have been assessed from the growing alternative energy market. The FEIS neither acknowledges alternative facts nor does it encourage proposal modifications that implement clean and practical modern technology. The addition of comments about IGCC and nuclear energy, and the blanket elimination of renewable energy sources are superficially biased. Far insuffient practical consideration was given to a combination of renewable energy sources firmed by gas or coal or É more wind?
General
Concerns Re. the FEIS
The FEIS for the HGS fails accurately to comply with a number of relevant laws and regulations, including federal NEPA, Ex. Order 13045, Ex Order 11990, the Farmland Protection Policy Act; and MontanaÕs Constitution, the EPA, and its Clean Air Act. Also, the standards the EPA has been using to address SMEÕs Proposal have not been adequate to the purpose. The FEIS fails adequately:
1. to list and describe the responsibilities of federal, state and local agencies that have jurisdiction over several aspects of the Proposed Action
2. to describe potential growth-inducing or growth-inhibiting impacts
3. to describe the economic and environmental costs of the Proposed Action
4. to describe the relationship between local short-term uses of manÕs environment and the effect on maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the environment
5. to evaluate the effects of regulatory restrictions on private property
6. to address major questions, such as
á What is the need to be met?
á In what ways could the need be addressed?
á How would these courses of action affect the environment?
á What could be done about those effects?
á What do others think about these alternatives and their impacts?
{See FEIS 1.2 NEPA and MEPA Processes}
Also, the 3 studies required by RUS and prepared and submitted by SME are not sufficiently complete for RUS to make a truly informed determination as to the feasibility of the proposed project. {See FEIS 1.2 ÐÒKey Agency Roles, Responsibilities and Decisions}
Therefore,
CCE expects that either the ÒNo Action Alternative be assigned in the ROD or a
Supplemental EIS be ordered before an ROD is issued. It is also understood that the RDÕs decision whether to
finance the Proposal is subject to the completion of all environmental review
and loan requirements.
My reply to the FEIS
Responses to some of my comments:
ALT-307 #1: Accept
the ÒNo Action Alternative.Ó It
does not fully meet the benefits, purpose and need for this project. Because
the purported Òbenefits are unlikely to materialize, and the potential for an
adverse impact likely, and because the Òpurpose and need for this projectÓ is
highly questionable, the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE is indeed the right decision.
ALT-307 #3: To
approve construction of a CFB plant wold violate MontanaÕs Constitutional
provision to provide a Òclean and healthful environment.Ó The permitting process É comply with
the Montana constition. Since
we disagree on this and other interpretations of Montana and federal laws,
statutes, and guidelines, may well be a case for the Montana and federal courts
to decide.
ALT-300 #2: The
DEIS offers no specific support to demonstrate its conclusion that all of these
alternatives dismissed qualify to be eliminated.Ó DEIS, DEQ,and
RUS independently analyzed the viability of each alternative. Really? Sorry, I donÕt buy this. The FEIS summarily dismissed some because they wonÕt
independently meet the 225 MW supposed need which lead to an arbitrary
and capricious conclusion in the FEIS.
GEN-100 #6 The ÒScopingÓ process requirements have not
been met :
The
DEIS states that the scoping process to solicit public input on the proposed
SME-HGS project began in the fall of 2004. A public meeting on October 13, 2004, at the Great Falls
Civic Center involved fewer than 100 citizens. The format of this meeting and the information provided
offered insufficient opportunity for public to provide appropriate
comment. For example, those who
attended were given no opportunity to question City of Great Falls
officials. Therefore, citizens had
no authentic opportunity to discover the relationship between SME and the City
of Great Falls. (Neither has such
opportunity been offered to date.)
Also, the comment form alluded to in the DEIS was not made readily
available, as evidenced by the notation that only 13 written responses were
received during the ensuing 30 day comment period. {See DEIS, Ch. 1-21}
Other public meetings and media coverage have been carefully crafted and limited by SME to offer selling points for the plant. Therefore, public concerns about the plant did not surface during the DEQ scoping period (spring of 2005), as evidenced again by the registry of a mere 45 citizens at the DEQ scoping meeting in Great Falls on April 18, 2005.
If one contrasts the 2004-2005 lackluster public scoping response to the significant level of public response to this summer 2006 DEIS, the insufficiency of the earlier scoping opportunities are evident.
ÉThe purpose of scoping is to solicit comments regarding
the key issues to be addressed in the EIS. The Response misses the point: the scoping did not provide answers as to the nature of the
Proposal, because no opportunity for dialogue was allowed. SME and GF City officials gave general
information, but did not provide answers to questions such as those regarding
the particulars of the SME- CGF partnership. The ÒscopingÓ occasions were
selling, not information presentations by SME and CGF. The public was not allowed access to
the details, and Òthe devil is in the details.Ó Finally, our questions were either ignored, or rebuffed, or
ridiculed by ÒofficialÓ promoters of the proposal. Therefore, many citizens of Great Falls are now very angry
with our city government.
GEN-100 #7 Not until DEQ issued the Air Quality
Permit, late winter of 2006, did citizens begin to become aware sufficiently to
question the City of Great Falls/SME plans for this CFB plant. Only then did the grassroots group
Citizens for Clean Energy (CCE) emerge.
Since then, City officials have rejected a number of requests for a
public meeting on the coal plant.
Therefore, it has been most difficult to get information about
responsibilities the City is incurring.
Information from SME has been limited to its web site, which has offered
only certain particulars.
The
public has been denied access to complete and accurate information during the
planning process. Most communities
that consider such a public venture seek voter approval of the project. That the City of Great Falls should
deny open consideration of this project is unacceptable.
This item is outside the scope of review of the EIS. The FEIS claims that many of the
comments are not relevant for its review; however, I disagree. Thus,
I formally request that all comments be reconsidered in a Supplemental EIS.
GEN-100 #3
There is reason to question
the impartiality of the Òindependent contractorÓ in the preparation of the
DEIS. The Mangi Environmental Group prepared the DEIS. Both the DEIS and the FEIS show considerable
bias in favor of the proposal and in an arbitrary disregard to legitimate
concerns about the proposal that have been voiced by the public.
BIE-700 #1 The
environmental affects of particle fall-out to the nearby Benton Lake Wildlife
Refuge are not addressed in the DEIS. The public has not been advised on this concern, so
public input has been denied (as has been the case for a number of other
citizen concerns regarding SMEÕs proposals).
Benton Lake Bird Refuge É are not located within the
primary downwind dispersal zone of the HGSÉ. The extent of toxic contamination from HGS has not been
accurately or adequately determined.
To error in the favor of the SME proposal is to allow an unnecessarily
risky enterprise to compromise irreplaceable natural resources.
Comment on FEIS:
3.13 ÒSocioEconomic EnvironmentÓ
The FEIA neither accurately nor sufficiently addresses Montana Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA) and NEPA requirements to consider:
1. The FEIS
outlines growth-inducing impacts; however, it does not address the growth- inhibiting
impacts
Potential Growth-Inhibiting Impacts to the following
population groups not sufficiently considered include the communities and
related industries of:
Most of these people live in this area by choice, many at
lower salaries than they could easily earn elsewhere. They value the quality of
life our clean environment offers. A significant number of them would not
choose to live and work in a community affected by a CFB coal plant. You have begun to hear from these
people. As their awareness grows,
so shall their voice and their concerns.
.
Great
Falls currently houses a growing, outstanding, vital health community. This is supported, in part, by retirees
which make up a large portion of the population (but whose contributions to the
community are not considered in the DEIS). An unusual number of Great Falls natives and military folk
choose to remain in Great Falls or to settle here upon retirement, or
sooner! Educators compete for the
opportunity to work in Great Falls.
Families choose to locate here.
Great
Falls is also a center for the arts.
An outstanding symphony attracts world-class musicians. The Charley Russell Museum is one of
several artistsÕ venues that bring both commercial artists and tourist to the
area. The relative number of outdoor recreation enthusiast is also impressive,
as evidenced by the large support for the expanding RiverÕs Edge Trail, and
public funding of a new state-of-the-art Roller Blade Park and a new soccer
field complex now under construction.
A
CFB plant in this area will eliminate a major reason such populations settle
here. They will choose
to live in areas that are choosing to clean up the environment through both
conservation and development of truly clean energy sources.
The
EIS #2 & 3 propose to usurp about 80% of the water rights on reserve for
the City of Great Falls. To
squander these rights on an archaic coal plant is to do a considerable
disservice to the citizens of Great Falls. Water is Òliquid gold,Ó and with Great FallsÕ other
amenities, we are poised to draw in truly clean enterprises which will result
in both economic opportunity (jobs) and tax revenue. Increasingly, people in
the populations described above will locate here. The economy will thrive, and there will be jobs for
all. However, this
opportunity will be gone once we sign away these water rights to a coal plant that will be sorely outdated
in a few short years
#2. Economic and environmental benefits are addressed in
the EIS however a number of the costs and risks of the Proposed Action are not
mentioned
Investment in a CFB plant is not practical. I trust that
RUS and other potential investors will weight the following factors carefully
before making a decision to approve funding for a CFB plant.
20
alternatives were eliminated in the DEIS Òon the grounds of cost, reliability,
or other
technical or environmental shortcomings.Ó Alternatives eliminated include:
power purchase agreements; energy
conservation and efficiency; renewable non-combustible energy sources (wind
energy, solar energy, hydroelectricity, geothermal energy); renewable
combustible energy sources (biomass, biogas, municipal solid waste); non-renewable
combustible energy sources (natural gas combined cycle, microturbines,
pulverized coal, integrated gasification combined cycle coal, oil); and three
alternative sites. Several alternative site-specific components also eliminated
include: different railroad spur alignments, alternate methods of obtaining
potable water, discharging wastewater into the Missouri River, and disposing
ash at local landfills.
The EIS offers no specific support to demonstrates its
conclusion that all of these alternatives qualify to be eliminated; therefore,
SMEÕs conclusion is speculative and open to challenge. Before the proposed CFB
plant is approved, convincing justification needs to be provided for the
elimination of each of the alternatives listed.
According to the EIS, ÒThe No Action Alternative avoids most direct adverse environmental effects.Ó EIS admits that the Proposed Option #1 is the only option that meets Montana Constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.
SME does not consider the risks of depending by-and-large on a single power source (a coal plant).
NW Energy and other larger power providers are far more diversified, and therefore, more reliable.
The relative cost of power from the Highwood plant is also highly questionable. The market will dictate the costs of power from Òother generation sources.Ó Recent interest in coal gasification development, increasing production of wind power, projected manufacture of affordable solar panels, possible breakthrough in hydrogen technology, and potential availability of hydro, oil and natural gas combine to make an investment in the Highwood plant highly speculative, at best. Also, political trends indicate growing resistance to coal-fired plants; however, the likelihood of increased penalties on CO2 and other pollutants which cannot be eliminated from a CFB plant have not been addressed in this DEIS.
Another omission are some important cost/risks of transporting the coal to the plant. There is currently a shortage of coal cars, current plants are short on their reserves, and if the industrial site is used, the coal will need to be transported across an inner-city bridge (or a new bridge will have to be financed, permitted, and built).
I trust that RUS and other potential investors will weight these factors carefully before making a decision to funding for a CFB plant in the Great Falls area.
Conclusion
The EIS is weak in a number of areas. For example, the EIS allows a number of initial months for non-compliance. This is totally unacceptable. The most stringent pollution controls need to be installed initially, not added later to meet minimum requirements, as is currently planned Compliance needs to be assured at initial start up, not one month (or eighteen months) later. The EIS offers conclusions are without documentation while others are based on questionable information. Perhaps more importantly, the DEIS is silent on several issues important to citizensÕ well-being.
Immediate and long range public safety trumps industry concerns. Therefore, I hope that RUS will honor its charge to base and enforce its decisions accordingly. Environmental regulations are designed to promote public safety; therefore, exceptions and violations should rarely, of ever, be permitted. To meet a long range safety requirement, any permit should require the timely installation of additional pollutions controls as better technological methods emerge.
Since the comment
period has been too short for me include herein specific supportive reference
information, I am simply noting areas yet adequately to be considered, and requesting
a SEIS be allowed.
Areas yet adequately to be considered in the EIS include:
The comment period here does not allow time to document the multiple occasions in the FEIS where the Response does not address the concern. Therefore, a SEIS is in order.
Thank you for your serious consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Pamela June Morris